The failing Muslim world

RECENT developments in the Muslim world have further fragmented Muslim states and exacerbated the sectarian and ethnic divides that are increasingly becoming the dominant determinant of politics in these countries. It has happened most dramatically in Palestine. In place of a united struggle for a Palestinian state we now have a Hamastan and Fatahstan in Gaza and the West Bank respectively.

Ridding Gaza of Fatah elements is now underway. In the West Bank, frustrated Fatah fighters are searching out and eliminating Hamas supporters. An amnesty for Fatah declared in Gaza is not likely to hold because Gaza, cut off from the rest of the world, finds itself starved of funds and foodstuff.

Egypt, the neighbour best placed to help Gaza, will be reluctant to do so, given its fears of a Hamas leadership that owes much to its indoctrination by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. In any case, the border currently remains closed and will reopen only when EU observers return and can satisfy Israel that weapons and other objectionable material are not being shipped into Gaza. Iran and Syria might want to help but their ability to do so will be limited. Islamists — many of them billionaires — in the Gulf might want to give Hamas their zakat but will have difficulty converting their cash donations into the essentials of life that Gaza needs.

One part of the American response to this development was an announcement that the US would contribute 40 million dollars to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which has been providing food and other aid to the Palestinians. Possibly much of the UNRWA assistance will now focus on Gaza and its one and a half million inhabitants, but even so the spectre of famine looms large. The principal source of food will be UN handouts.

Reports now emerging suggest that given clan and local loyalties among Palestinians and the long period for which Israeli policies minimised interaction and movement between Gaza and the West Bank, the residents of the two areas have become two different people. The current separation is only an implementation of a reality that had come into being.

There is talk in Washington, as reflected at the Condoleezza Rice’s press conference that now the Israelis will have a negotiating partner in President Mahmoud Abbas and that progress can, therefore, be made towards the talks that the roadmap had visualised. But Israeli settlements now cover 40 per cent of West Bank territory, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is in no position to concede the evacuation of even a small part of these settlements.

Fragmentation in the Muslim world has had its first concrete manifestation in Palestine. Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan may well be in line to fall victim to this so-called “separatism” in Palestine. Is this an exaggerated fear?

In Iraq, the second bombing of the holy shrines of Imam Ali Al-Hadi and Imam Hassan Al-Askari in Samarra has led to the destruction of at least 13 Sunni mosques, including a particularly revered one in the Shia city of Basra. Moqtada Al-Sadr has issued a call for the Shias to march to Samarra next month to protect the shrines. Such a procession will pose a daunting security challenge to the beleaguered Iraqi security forces and the Americans since it will pass through a Sunni-dominated area where passions are running high following the attacks.

Other unresolved problems such as the revision of the constitution to give the Sunnis a fair share of power, the adoption of the law on the division of oil revenues, the rescinding of the current law on debaathification, etc remain as contentious as ever.

On the Kurdish front, the deadline for deciding the fate of oil-rich Kirkuk is fast approaching and the Kurds appear intent on ensuring that it is made part of Iraqi Kurdistan along with large swathes of what were Kurdish majority areas in Nineveh province. The reaction of the Sunnis in Mosul is indicative of the fierce resistance such a step would face.

There is no doubt that these fissures existed in Iraqi society since long. There is also no doubt that until the Americans at the end of Desert War in 1991 incited the Shias to rise against their oppressor, relative sectarian harmony prevailed in Iraq.There is no doubt that the Kurdish question has bedevilled Iraq since it was created but there is also no doubt that the current state of affairs came about only because in the aftermath of the 1991 Desert War the Americans created and enforced the no-fly zones. Following the 2003 invasion, they did nothing to check the growth of the peshmerga as the Kurdish army and the acquisition by the Kurds of all the trappings of an independent state.

No other group is as beholden to the Americans in Iraq as the Kurds. No other group feels that it can call upon the Americans, in return for the assistance they provided pre- and post-2003, to help the Kurds realise their aspirations, despite what the Americans may feel they owe to Turkey.

There is now a civil war in Iraq and fragmentation is only a matter of time. The Americans, even if they had the staying power and the will, would not be able to prevent it. Neither would Iraq’s neighbours, who, although they recognise the dangers of such fragmentation, distrust one another and cannot agree to cooperate.

In Lebanon, divisions over the question of an international tribunal to investigate the assassination of former Prime Minster Rafik Hariri have led to a virtual paralysis. The fight against the extremist groups in the Palestinian refugee camps has now exacerbated the Sunni-Shia divide within the Lebanese population. Sunni secularists led by late Prime Minister Hariri’s son find themselves more and more dependent on extremist Salafist groups as they contend with what has become a monolithic Shia movement led by Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah.

A return to the era of fiefdoms seems to be around the corner with the Maronites, the Druzes, the Shias and the Sunnis each carving out their own areas of influence and the Palestine refugee camps becoming a haven for extremist forces from all over the Muslim world. Syria, of course, will try and retain its influence while the French and the Americans will support the factions that they have been associated with in the past.

In Afghanistan, the paucity of “boots on the ground” has led to more and more civilian casualties in the south and southeast of the country, encouraging the belief that the war on the Taliban is, in fact, a war on the Pashtuns. In the north, Rashid Dostum is now reasserting his influence. He was responsible for ethnically cleansing the north of the Pashtuns (who had been settled there for many generations) on the ground that they were Taliban supporters.

Now he has raised the banner of revolt against the Pashtun governor. The central government is apparently unable to cope with the situation. In Herat, an influx of refugees thrown out by the Iranians — about 100,000 in the last few weeks — has not yet affected the prosperity that this province has enjoyed thanks to Iranian generosity. The perception is growing that for Herati Tajiks, an association with the Iranians and a sundering (if necessary) of ties with the rest of Afghanistan may be the best path to economic development.

What lessons does this have for Pakistan? Do we have the same vulnerabilities and can they be similarly exploited by external forces or exacerbated by our own short-sighted policies? Let’s face it. If Iran has problems in Sunni Balochistan and Seistan or in Iranian Kurdistan we have an alienated Balochistan where the situation is exacerbated by the ethnic divide between the Baloch and the Pashtuns on the one hand and the locals and settlers on the other.

In the Frontier, as also in the Pashtun belt in Balochistan, extremism is no longer confined to the tribal areas but is spreading to the settled districts with alarming rapidity. No success seems to have attended the efforts at development in the area despite the announcement of large grants for the purpose, including one of $750 million over a five-year period promised by the Americans.

Thousands of people have thronged the streets in support of the Chief Justice as a symbol of the Pakistani people’s desire for the implementation of the rule of law and for an end to army rule. It is a movement of the urban middle class. It is a movement that has so far avoided being seen as the tool of political parties. It is a movement that has belied cynics who have often stated that the Pakistani people lack political maturity and that their emotions usually take a turn towards violence because of their intolerance of dissent or disagreement.

If these demonstrations are seen as an expression of the will of the people then it would seem that free, fair and transparent elections with full accountability would represent the answer to Pakistan’s problems. All the issues we have require political solutions and wise leadership by popularly elected leaders.

But, there are also some unfortunate ground realities. In the early phase of such democratisation, the politicians would require the full support of the institutions that have hitherto ruled the country directly or indirectly.

Changing the mindset of extremists who pose the greatest threat to Pakistan’s existence as a moderate state must be preceded by a change of mindset in the institutions that have wittingly or unwittingly fostered extremism and which continue to see it as the guarantor of their continued exercise of power.

On the other side, the powers that be must also recognise that a new force has emerged in Pakistan. If Pakistan is to be preserved, the validity of the demands of this new force must be acknowledged. Failing to do so or resorting to opportunism of the past will make us yet another in the number of Muslim countries ready for fragmentation.

It may be of interest that a recent article in Foreign Policy gives a detailed analysis of the countries that a group of experts have determined can be regarded as “failing states”. This places Pakistan at 12th position while Afghanistan ranks eighth with Sudan and Iraq topping the list. Even Bangladesh is at the 16th position. We can dismiss this as anti-Pakistan propaganda, but even if we do, we should see what we can do to address the kernel of truth on which this assessment is based.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

Professional hazards for journalists

AT A time when communication technology has facilitated the flow of information and made it difficult for governments to suppress the dissemination of news, authorities in South Asia are moving against the tide.

They have stepped up their effort to curb access to knowledge and information in a desperate bid to keep the people in the dark. This is a paradox that is difficult to explain.

A recently released publication titled The Fight Goes On: Press Freedom in South Asia 2006-2007, prepared by the International Federation of Journalists, documents the challenges journalists in South Asia have faced. Although erroneously the sub-title speaks of press freedom, the report covers print journalists as well as those working for the electronic and virtual media.

While one can celebrate the fact that the authorities in the eight countries of this region have failed to stifle the press, despite their resort to brutal methods, the question to be asked is: how long can this go on? The IFJ report lists the names and particulars of 143 journalists who were threatened, harassed, kidnapped, physically assaulted or even killed (18 of them) in May 2006-April 2007. Besides many more suffered when their organisation was attacked or there was a clampdown on the media.

This brutalisation of the press by targeting journalists personally is shocking. On the basis of data compiled by the IFJ, in 2006 Pakistan was declared the third most dangerous country in the world to be a journalist in. Four media men were killed in Pakistan during the course of the year. Eight lost their lives in Sri Lanka.

This is a new trend. Previously the “offending” newspaper was penalised for reporting something found to be offensive by the powers that be. It could be in the form of a ban, a fine, imprisonment for the editor or even shutting down the paper. Such measures would have the intended effect of cowing the press.

But now circumstances have changed. The countries where violations of the freedom of the media have taken the most abusive form are the ones where political instability has been most rampant, state repression has been at its worst, the rule of law has virtually vanished and socio-economic conditions have deteriorated to such an extent that state structures and institutions have broken down.

In these conditions journalists have faced threats not just from the government but also from a number of non-state actors such as political parties, terrorist and rebel groups, maverick intelligence agencies and vested interests. In this context, the enemies of the freedom of expression have found it more convenient to single out journalists and prevent them from performing their duties by unleashing violence against them. This has made individuals more vulnerable. Even family members have been attacked.

Pakistan is a good example of how the deteriorating political conditions have hit the media most acutely. Shaky military governments have cracked down on the press and the electronic media the hardest believing that they can set things right by shooting the messenger so that the message does not reach the people. But it does not happen that way any more because today information has its way of reaching the people — thanks to the invention of new technology.

But the media can only expose the wrongdoings of the rulers and inform the people. It cannot actually try the wrongdoer, as a court of law would. Neither can it punish the guilty or provide redress to the victim. These are the functions of a law court, the police and the administration. The fact is that the media can operate effectively only in a democratic milieu when all the institutions are functioning perfectly.

Then why do those governments, which have destroyed institutions such as the judiciary, have reduced good governance to a farce and have destroyed the rule of law, fear freedom of expression? Their biggest fear is that a lively and enlightened media will mobilise public opinion in support of democracy and the rule of law. By educating and informing the people, the press, radio and television can help them sift out the wheat from the chaff and determine what is right and what is wrong.

Before the advent of the private and independent electronic media, print journalism was the only source of information from a non-government source. Considering the low level of literacy in South Asia — cumulatively it stands at 57 per cent but in some countries like Afghanistan it is only 28 per cent — newspapers had limited readerships.

Even today, India which is the most populous of the South Asian states has a newspaper circulation of 203.6 million (20 per cent of the population above 12 years of age). With a proliferation of television channels information now spreads fast and illiteracy is no barrier in the way of access to information.

These are plus points for media freedom. But as pointed out by the IFJ report in its section on Pakistan, journalists need greater economic security to enable them to work confidently and build up a healthy, strong and vibrant media. Better working conditions will also promote greater integrity.

What has not been sufficiently emphasised and in which the IFJ could play a role is in the training and continuing education of journalists, encouraging the journalist bodies to draw up their own code of ethics and working for their self-improvement. The media derives its greatest strength from its own professionalism, integrity and authenticity which allow it to fight against draconian laws on strong moral ground.

The IFJ has rightly observed that there can be no press freedom if journalists exist in conditions of corruption, poverty or fear. The IFJ no doubt provides security to the journalists by extending them international support when they are at risk. But it should also help in improving professionalism in the media, especially in countries where journalists are most threatened.

Neglected Muslim Art

I HAVE just received a remembrance card from a professor who teaches Islamic art in Germany and it has taken me back to what he said about Pakistan some years ago. But let me begin with an introduction of my own.

We in Pakistan, both the government and the people, think that we are the only country in the world which is truly sincere in its adherence to Islam. We boast about it from the housetops, and our intentions to Islamise society are broadcast to the world day and night.

In the presence of these claims an outsider would be justified in believing that every one of us must be busy day and night dedicating our knowledge and our talents to promoting art and literature related to Islam. The fact however is that we are doing no such thing. Matters are at a standstill in most respects since July 1977 when the so-called process of Islamisation started, and in some cases since August 1947 when this Muslim state came into being.

Self-praise, they say, is no recommendation. The only opinion worth believing is that of objective neutral outsiders. This is where the German professor comes in. Dr Burchard Brentjes is an expert in Islamic art and architecture and almost a partisan sympathiser of our faith (his both daughters are married to Arabs). Let me tell you what he had to say about an important aspect of Islamic culture in Pakistan when we met many years ago.

Professor Brentjes gave a detailed interview to a local newspaper. I saw him after the interview was published and we have exchanged greetings since then. I have fished out that interview from my scrapbook for my readers’ information. It is a sad commentary on our love for Islamic art, though I doubt if it is going to move anyone in the cultural bureaucracy.

Dr Brentjes expressed shock at the lack of importance given to the subject of Islamic art. He said he was disappointed to find that there was no museum of Islamic art even in the capital of the Islamic Republic. He did not witness any specific Islamic architecture and this he had specially come to see. As he said, “your capital is named Islamabad and it should have been a model of Islamic art and architecture.”

He said little had been published on the subject in Pakistan. “It may sound strange but you will find more publications back home to produce material based on Islamic art in Pakistan. But those books would be in German while, in his opinion, books for Pakistan should be written by Pakistanis themselves in their own languages or in English. He was also disappointed at not finding a single institute here doing research in the subject.

I think that is enough of a ‘tribute’ to our love for Islam and its artistic manifestations. Before I proceed further I must say I feel grateful to Dr Brentjes for speaking so frankly. This was a refreshing departure from the usual diplomatic utterances of foreign visitors who praise our progress in every field. It may be good manners but such praise only makes us more complacent and is no help at all.I am not an expert but I think that when talking of art, architecture and archaeology we should use the adjective Muslim rather than Islamic. These expressions of cultural development have nothing to do with religion but they have much to do with Muslims as artists, architects, craftsmen and artisans. In various Muslim countries the artistic products of culture by Muslims have shaped differently. For example, a mosque in Indonesia or North Africa looks completely different from a mosque in India or Pakistan. However this was just a thought.

It is really tragic how the Muslims of the subcontinent degenerated in the arts after the decline of the Mughals. Except Urdu poetry we have nothing worthwhile to show in any sphere connected with our cultural personality. Even Urdu prose grew up on English and other European literatures. We stopped painting. Music made desperate efforts to survive, and succeeded to some extent because it was sustained by the gharanas, families of musicians.

Dance was given up except in the morally questionable form of mujra, or was retained only by the peasant population in its folk varieties. Calligraphy is only now coming into its own after a long period of neglect. Private buildings constructed by the people, including mosques, were artistically atrocious, even hideous because there were no proper architects, ‘maimaars’ left, and the work of designing was given over to masons and bricklayers. In fact credit goes to the British for incorporating distinctive architectural traditions of the Muslims in public buildings in Lahore and New Delhi.

After independence it was our national duty to devote attention to these matters. It is not enough to include Islamic studies in school and college syllabi and broadcast the azaan and tilawat over radio and TV and to write Bismillah over every official letter. Emotional and ideological attachment to Islam also comes through pride in artistic attainments and preservation of the Muslim artistic heritage.

Isn’t it ironical that western experts and other foreign connoisseurs should go into raptures over the magnificent buildings of the glorious Muslim period and the beautiful objects of art left by our ancestral artists and craftsmen while we should behave as if these never existed.

Coming back to the disappointment felt by Dr Burchard Brentjes I don’t think any attempt has been made to give the traditional Muslim look to any public building in Pakistan except the Quaid-i-Azam’s mausoleum. Also, no effort has been made by the federal and provincial governments to sustain and nurture the Muslim decorative arts which, in olden times, were such a striking feature of the interiors of public and private buildings.

It is only Lok Virsa that has done some truly memorable work in this field, but that has been more due to the insight and dedication of its officials than any initiative from the ministry of culture. To repeat, I wonder if Dr Brentjes’ words will be read by our cultural bureaucrats in Islamabad who, like all other bureaucrats, don’t read anything but the some American magazines and try to sound clever and well-informed on their contents.

EU faces a critical week

IT has been two years since the constitutional treaty agreed by the European Union heads of government was killed off by the French and Dutch referendums. Since then, European leaders have been reflecting about the way ahead. Thinking is supposed to generate wisdom, but there has been scant evidence of this in the frenzied run-up to this week's EU summit.

Everyone agrees on the big picture: it is clear that the EU's institutions are inadequate to deal with a club of 27 members. It is also clear that without institutional reform, it will be harder to move forward on the big issues, such as climate change, immigration, energy security and globalisation. The EU has to emerge from its state of paralysis, and the time to do so is now. But no one can find a path through the forest of red lines that each member appears to have laid down. Two years on, the arguments are just as bitter, the divisions just as entrenched.

Some things have changed. There is now a new generation of leaders in the German chancellor Angela Merkel, the French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who will shortly be joined by Gordon Brown. With them comes a new era of pragmatism and a shared assumption that the EU's performance should be measured by the results it produces for its citizens rather than the political projects its generates for its leaders.

No one is talking any more about building a federal European state, but there is every interest in making the institutions that exist more efficient. Both Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy are more Atlanticist and pro-market than their predecessors were, so they should be easier for a British prime minister to deal with. When Mr Sarkozy arrives in London tomorrow, just before this week's summit, not only will he be the most powerful French president to have arrived in Britain in five decades, after his presidential and parliamentary elections, he will also be the friendliest.

If Tony Blair and Mr Brown have a problem with Germany's plan to make the charter of fundamental rights, which increases the rights of workers, legally binding, or with a proposal to extend qualified majority voting to criminal justice matters, depriving member states of their national veto, then the scene is set for Mr Sarkozy to help Britain opt out of the former and opt in to the latter.

If deciding the future shape of the union was left in the hands of Britain, France and Germany, there would be few jitters about finding a way forward, even with Mr Brown, who is noticeably cooler on Europe. The leaders of all three countries want a slimmed down, amending treaty, which can be passed by parliament and avoid the political risks of another doomed referendum.

But it is not that simple. None of the mechanisms for speeding up decision making in the EU, like more sensible voting rights based on population, are yet available to the leaders at this week's summit. One country's veto could stop the project in its tracks.

It is not British opt outs that have been uppermost in Mrs Merkel's mind as she prepares for the event that will crown Germany's presidency of the EU, but her awkward neighbour Poland. Four hours of talks between Mrs Merkel and Polish president Lech Kaczynski on Saturday failed to achieve a breakthrough on the Polish campaign to unpick a deal that would accord EU countries votes based on the size of their populations.

Poland, a country with half of Germany's population, is proposing a voting system based on the square root of each country's population. This would give it six votes, to Germany's nine. It has prompted some Poles to embrace the bizarre rallying cry: "Square root or death." This has cut little ice in Germany, and yet a Polish veto threatens to derail the whole proceedings. If any dispute demonstrated the need to reform the EU, it is this one. The EU can ill afford another two years of contemplation, and Poland, which is currently getting more money from the EU than postwar Germany did from the Marshall Fund, should realise this.

––The Guardian, London